Assessing Fatalities in Oil and Gas Extraction WorkersSPE, HSSE Study Group, Denver, April 2016

The findings and conclusions in this report are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent the views of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health.

Kyla Retzer, MPHNational Institute for Occupational Safety and Health

Session Overview

1. Fatality Rates & Leading Causes of Death2. Impact of Automated Rigs on Injury Rates3. Development of “FOG” and using FOG to identify emerging hazard4. Current project

Oil on canvas, by Joe Burns.

• Part of the Centers for Disease Control & Prevention (CDC)

• Research-focused, not regulatory

• Created an Oil and Gas Sector Program in 2007 (Epi/Surveillance, Exposure Assessment, Engineering Controls, Communications)

National Institute for Occupational Safety & Health (NIOSH)

1. Fatality Rates & Leading Causes of Death

Upstream has the Highest Fatality Ratein the U.S. Oil & Gas Industry, 2014

5

Upstream36% of total workersFatality Rate = 22.9

Midstream17% of total workersFatality Rate = 4.1

Downstream60% of total workersFatality Rate = 4.2

Source: BLS/CFOI and BLS/QCEW. All rates calculated per 100,000 workers. 2014 data are preliminary.

Operators

Drilling Contractors

Well Servicing CompaniesOil and Gas

Extraction Industry

The U.S. Oil and Gas Extraction Industry

June 8, 2015

Industry Growth

2003

20132003

Well Servicing Companies

Oil and Gas Operators

Drilling Contractors

92% Increase

62% Increase

245% Increase

2003 2013

The oil and gas workforce doubled and the number of drilling rigs increased 71% from 2003-2013.

120,536 workers

296,891workers

2013

48,596 workers

121,124 workers

196,732 workers

93,261 workers

June 8, 2015

Methods

x =

Rate Calculation

Statistical Test

Negative Binomial

over time

100,000

BLS CFOI Number of Fatalities (NAICS: 211, 213111, 213112)

BLS Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages(Not Full Time Equivalent [FTE])

per 100,000Workers

Fatality

Difference in

June 8, 2015

Rate

Regression Rates

85

98 98

125 122

120

68

107

112

142

112

142

0

25

50

75

100

125

150

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

Num

ber o

f Dea

ths

Deat

hs p

er 1

00,0

00 w

orke

rs

Fatalities Rate

Number and Rate of Fatal Work InjuriesU.S. Oil & Gas Extraction Industry, 2003-2014

Note: Fatality counts from BLS Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries. Worker Estimates from BLS Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (2013). Rate per 100,000 workers per year. Includes NAICS 211, 213111, 213112. *Data for 2014 are preliminary.

N=1,189

June 8, 2015

85

98 98

125 122

120

68

107

112

142

112

0

25

50

75

100

125

150

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

Num

ber o

f Dea

ths

Deat

hs p

er 1

00,0

00 w

orke

rs

Fatalities Rate

Number and Rate of Fatal Work InjuriesU.S. Oil & Gas Extraction Industry, 2003-2013

Note: Fatality counts from BLS Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries. Worker Estimates from BLS Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (2013). Rate per 100,000 workers per year. Includes NAICS 211, 213111, 213112. *Data for 2013 are preliminary.

N=1,185

FatalityRate

FatalitiesWeekperIndustry

2

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Fata

lity

Rate

per

100

,000

Trends in Fatality Rate by Company Type, 2003-2013

Well Servicing CompaniesOil and Gas Operators Drilling Contractors

Statistically Significant

58%Fa

talit

ies

Not Statistically Significant

27%

Fata

litie

s

Statistically Significant

33%

Fata

litie

sJune 8, 2015

Fata

litie

s

Possible Reasons for Improvement

• Development of STEPS Networks.

• Creation of transportation safety groups (e.g. Appalachian Shale Transportation Group).

• Development of the NIOSH NORA Oil and Gas Council.

• The OSHA Oil and Gas Safety and Health Conference.

• New ALLIANCE between STEPS/OSHA/NIOSH.

NIOSH exhibit - OSHA Oil and Gas Safety and Health Conference. OSHA, STEPS, NIOSH Alliance signing event, Dec 2014.

June 8, 2015

Most Frequent Fatal EventsU.S. Oil & Gas Extraction Industry, 2003-2014

41% (548)

26% (340)

14% (187)

Exposure

9% (114)

Falls8% (109) Other

2% (33)

1331Total Fatalities

Data Source: BLS CFOI

Fires/Explosions

Transportation

Contact with Objects/Equipment

2. Impact of Automated Rigs on Injury Rates

• Largest drilling contractor in U.S.– 15% of person-hours among onshore drilling

contractors

• OSHA recordable injuries among employers and contractors, 2003–2012– New and old rigs used during this time

Impact of engineering controls on injury rates at aninternational drilling company (H&P)

One or more engineering controls designed to reduce exposure to rig hazards:

– Top drive– Hydraulic catwalk– Power tongs

…and an AC-drive motor

“New” Rigs - defined

• Mechanical rigs• Silicon-controlled rectifier (SCR) rigs• Includes conventional rigs on which drillers

use mechanical brake handle to operate drawworks from rig floor

“Old” Rigs - defined

18

Manual Tongs Automated Tongs (i.e. Iron Roughneck)

Hoisting Equipment Hydraulic Catwalk

H&P operated 321 rigs during 2003–2012

Results

Old Rigs- 19.5 million person hours

New Rigs- 57.9 million person hours

Injury rate on new rigs was 33% lower than on old rigs.

Results

*Rate per 200,000 manhours.

Results- Injury Severity

Medical Attention only: 30% lower injury rates on new rigs (P<.01)

Restricted Work Duty: 41% lower injury rates on new rigs (P<.01)

Lost Time Incidents: 45% lower injury rates on new rigs (p=.03)

Results- Injury by Job Type

Floormen: 33% lower injury rates on new rigs (P<.01)

Derrickmen: 40% lower injury rates on new rigs (P=.02)

Motormen: 45% lower injury rates on new rigs (p<.01)

• First study focused on relationship between rig technology and injury rates within land-based oil and gas extraction industry

• For this large drilling contractor, new rigs appear to provide safer work environment

Conclusions

3. Development of FOG and using FOG to identify emerging hazard

Struck by what?

Are some vehicles more dangerous?

Is distraction or fatigue a factor?

What are the most common ignition sources?

Do they work where they live?

What are the most dangerous operations?

Different risks for different basins?

Struck by what?

Are some vehicles more dangerous?

Is distraction or fatigue a factor?

What are the most common ignition sources?

Do they work where they live?

What are the most dangerous operations?

Different risks for different basins?

The details needed to answer these questions are not in available data

sources (BLS CFOI)

Fatalities in Oil and Gas (FOG) database

New internal database collecting detailed information about oil and gas worker fatalities in the U.S.

Includes

Excludes

Data Sources

Limitations

All identified fatal events to U.S. oil and gas extraction workers

• Land-based• Offshore• Common O&G NAICS• Uncommon O&G NAICS

• Motor vehicle incidents• Non-traditional commutes• Cardiac events

Midstream, downstream, non-fatal injuries

Off-site motor vehicle incidents, work-related chronic illness

OSHA, media, crash reports, autopsy reports, industry etc.

Fatalities in Oil and Gas (FOG) database

50 Variables per Incident Operation Basin Fatigue Related Weather Related Offshore Incidents

FOG collects the details that are missing from other data sources

41 Variables per Worker

Occupation Years in Oilfield English as a Second Language Task

FOG

Federal

State

Local

GovernmentH&S Professionals

Workers

Presentations DataPeer Reviewed Articles

Information Pipeline

State

Evidence BasedStories Surveillance

Training Recommn

Examp

Industry

• In 2013, NIOSH contacted by Dr. Bob Harrison regarding 2 deaths where inhalation of petroleum hydrocarbon gases and vapors suspected.

• NIOSH reviewed fatalities (2010-2014) in FOG and monitored deaths closely.

• Published 1st Science Blog in May 2014 (following 2 more deaths).

Using FOG to Identify Fatalities

• When hatches on production tanks are opened by a worker (to gauge or collect sample), a plume of hydrocarbon gases and vapors can be rapidly released due to the internal pressure present in the tank.

• Propane• Butane• Ethane• Benzene

Opening of Hatches on Tanks

– Asphyxiation – Oxygen deficient atmosphere– Narcotic Effects Resulting in

• Disorientation• Dizziness• Light-headedness• Cardiac arrhythmia (irregular heartbeat)• Respiratory depression (reduced breathing rate and

inadequate ventilation of the lungs)– Explosive

Hazards to Workers

FLIR Video

Provided by John Snawder, DART

Worker over Open Hatch

Fatality Case Definition

• Non-traumatic• Worker in proximity to a

known and concentrated source of hydrocarbon gases and vapors. (open hatch)

• Hydrogen Sulfide (H2S) was ruled out.

• Not confined space.• Not fires/explosions.• Case by Case Review

conducted by OSHA/NIOSH.

Fatalities on Oil and Gas Well Sites Involving an Open Thief Hatch, 2010-2014

Year of death

Age, years

State Description of how person was found Coroner's stated cause of death

1 2010 30 MO Slumped over on the catwalk Hypertensive and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease

2 2012 21 ND On catwalk next to open hatch Hydrocarbon poisoning due to inhalation of petroleum vapors

3 2013 39 ND Slumped over catwalk railing on knees in front of open hatch

Sudden cardiac arrhythmia (primary), morbid obesity and arteriosclerotic heart disease (contributory)

4 2014 57 OK On catwalk next to tank slumped over Undetermined (no autopsy performed)5 2014 51 CO Hanging from guardrail, hooked on by

clothingSudden cardiac death due to ischemic heart disease

6 2014 57 CO Collapsed over open hatch Atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease 7 2014 59 CO Collapsed over open hatch Toxic gas inhalation and oxygen displacement by

volatile hydrocarbons (primary), atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and sudden cardiac death (contributory)

8 2014 63 TX At the bottom of the catwalk stairs Arteriosclerotic and hypertensive cardiovascular disease

9 2014 20 ND Face down over open hatch Cardiac arrhythmia, with cardiac hypertrophy, coronary artery hypogenesis, obesity and petroleum hydrocarbon vapors

OSHA Health Response Team Results

-20

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

0

5

10

15

20

25

% L

ower

Exp

losi

ve L

imit

(LEL

)

% O

xyge

n

Time

Dräger GasVisi X-am 2500 data from 11:30:41 am to 12:15:56 pm on 7/13/14

% Oxygen Dräger alarm 19.5% oxygen % Lower explosive limit

“OVR” > 100% LEL

Percent oxygen concentration

Percent lower explosive limit

Source: Michael Kosnett MD, MPH

Monitoring Data of Worker, Day of Death

Suspected Inhalation Fatalities Involving Workers during Manual Tank Gauging, Sampling, and Fluid Transfer Operations

www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/fog/publications.html

NIOSH FOG Report, Science Blog, MMWR, Hazard Alert

Current Recommendations

1. Implement alternative tank gauging and sampling procedures.

2. Retrofit existing tanks with dedicated sampling ports.3. Install thief hatch pressure indicators.4. Conduct worker exposure assessments. 5. Provide hazard communication training. 6. Ensure workers are trained and use calibrated multi-gas

and oxygen monitors.7. Do not permit employees to work alone.8. Administrative contols: reduce tank pressure prior to

gauging, ensure intrinsic safety of devices9. Wear flame-resistant clothing

10. Establish and practice emergency procedures

Most Effective

Least Effective

• Only one worker suspected death in 2015

• Established trend of deaths due to cardiac events on tanks

• Stopped resistance from industry group to create alert

• Aided in Colorado widow receiving benefits

Making a Difference

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L6Tg2V4Svjw

BHP Billiton: Reducing Inhalation Risks

New American Petroleum Industry Standard:18.2. Alternative Methods for Gauging/Sampling

Bureau of Land Management:Update Onshore Order 4 to allow for alternative methods

Other Successes

4. Current Projects

National STEPS Emerging Issues Focus Group

• 2 Key Areas of Focus: Respirable Silica; Hydrocarbon Gases and Vapors

• Engaging Engineers in Discussion of these controls

• Next Meeting: May 12-13, Texas• Presentations on Controls for Each• Contact: Rick Ingram: rickey.ingram1@bp.com

Oil and Gas Extraction Field Survey

ResultsGuide interventions and future research

Objectives-Identify health and safety concerns of workers-Determine factors that contribute to motor vehicle incidents

Participants500 oil and gas workers in 3 states

ContentGeneral Topics

-Demographics-Health and personal habits-Workplace/Job characteristics-Safety culture

Topics of Concern-Tank gauging and sampling-Driving behaviors-Chemical exposures-Respirable silica

• The oil and gas extraction worker fatality rate is elevated

• Development of engineering controls are essential to improving safety and health among oil and gas workers

• SPE has been great venue to share information about hazards

Concluding Thoughts

NORA Oil & Gas Extraction Council Members

ResourcesFatalities in the Oil and Gas Extraction Industry (FOG) Websitehttp://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/fog/default.html

Oil and Gas Extraction Worker Fatalities 2014 Mid-Year Report: January 1, 2014- June 30, 2014http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/2015-239/default.html

Suspected Inhalation Fatalities Involving Workers during Manual Tank Gauging, Sampling, and Fluid Transfer Operations on Oil and Gas Well Sites, 2010-2014http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/fog/data.html

Hydrocarbon Exposures During Tank Gauging and Sampling Operations National STEPS Network Hazard Alerthttp://www.nationalstepsnetwork.org/docs_tank_gauging/TankHazardInfographicFinal04_22_15.pdf

Occupational Fatalities During the Oil and Gas Boom – United States, 2003-2013http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6420a4.htm

Contact Info and Acknowledgements

Contact Info:

Kyla Retzer, NIOSH, Western States Divisionkgz7@cdc.gov , 303-236-5934

Acknowledgements: Sophia Ridl, NIOSH, Western States Division